'Don't ask, don't tell' procedural vote fails

Updated 5:41 p.m. ET
A Senate procedural vote to move forward with debate on a bill ending the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law failed Thursday to earn the 60 votes necessary to proceed, delivering a significant blow to efforts to allow gays to serve openly.

Despite the setback, senators fighting to end the ban said they would introduce a separate bill to repeal it.

The bill will be cosponsored by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), who often work together on homeland security and defense issues. They said the bill will have bipartisan support.

President Obama expressed disappointment and urged senators to reconsider the National Defense Authorization Act before the end of the lame-duck session.

"Despite having the bipartisan support of a clear majority of senators, a minority of senators are standing in the way of the funding upon which our troops, veterans and military families depend," Obama said in a statement. "This annual bill has been enacted each of the past 48 years, and our armed forces deserve nothing less this year."

Senators voted 57 to 40 to advance the NDAA, which contained language ending the ban, as all Republicans except Collins held firm on a vow to block any legislation that does not address tax cuts or government spending. One Democrat, Sen. Joseph Manchin (D-W.Va.) voted against.

"We've tried every possible way to do this," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday before the vote. More than a week of negotiations with Collins and Lieberman.

Throughout the first 15 minutes of the vote, Collins repeatedly broke into huddles with Lieberman and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), reading through legislative language on the floor, at times rolling it up into a ball and angrily waving her arms about how the process was handled. Collins voted with Democrats to proceed on the bill, though by then it was clear her vote would not effect the outcome.

Collins, Reid and Lieberman had negotiated for more than week on an agreement that would allow Republicans to introduce up to 10 amendments to the bill, with Democrats adding up to five.

Collins agreed to the amendment count Wednesday, but held firm to a request for at least four days of debate on the bill and amendments. Reid rebuffed her request, citing the need to proceed with the tax and spending measures before the Senate's planned departure next weekend.

"History will hold these senators accountable and so will many of their constituents," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group pushing for repeal of the law. "There will be no place for these Senators to hide. The Senate and the president must remain in session and in Washington to find another path for repeal to get done in the lame-duck."

"Leaders of both parties let down the U.S. military and the American people," said Joe Solomonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization with close ties to the White House and Congressional Democrats "Instead of doing what is right, 'the world's greatest deliberative body' devolved into shameful schoolyard spats that put petty partisan politics above the needs of our women and men in uniform."

Thursday's vote saps gay-rights activists of their strongest legislative option for ending the ban; they now plan to pressure Obama to act on his own through executive action. Obama could order the Justice Department to stop appealing federal court cases challenging the constitutionality of the law or use his powers as commander-in-chief to issue a stop-loss order halting military discharges and the removal of any gay troops in violation of the ban.

Executive action by Obama is "imperative in order for him to fulfill his State of the Union promise," Solomonese said. "The only measure of success is an end to the discharges and anything less is unacceptable."

"I think the president strongly believes that one of two things is going to happen: Either Congress is going to solve this legislatively, or the courts are going to solve this," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday before the vote. "The policy is going to come to an end."

A Pentagon spokesman said the Defense Department had no immediate comment. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen support ending the ban through legislation this year, as do some of the military service chiefs. But the heads of the Army and Marine Corps last week expressed reservations about ending the ban this year as combat troops continue to face the pressures of ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The fate of the broader 2011 defense measure is also increasingly in doubt with Congress scheduled to depart next weekend. The measure, which authorized Pentagon policy and spending, has been approved for 48 consecutive years.

Posted by: nyrunner101: "A majority of Senators and the population of the country is against extending the tax cuts for the rich."
-------------------------------------------
You're drug induced hallucinations aside, the latest national polling has 66% of American's FOR keeping the taxes the same for ALL tax brackets. Besides, didn't you know that the Dem leadership NEVER had any intention of ending DADT? If they did, it would have taken them 10 minutes in Feb.'09...

«Collins agreed to the amendment count Wednesday, but held firm to a request for at least four days of debate on the bill . . . »

Debate? «at least four days of debate»? Homophobes, there are no two sides to debate, there is one side «repeal», with arguments to debate, the other side is not a side, the «anti-repeal» side, anyone on that side is a homophobe, that side is not based on arguments, it is based only on the «Wisdom of Repugnance» and the «ethics of disgust».

Disgust, repugnance, ¿what is this disgust that causes so many GI's and Marines not to want homosexual men in their outfits? Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said, «A man must not look at a man's private parts, nor a woman at a woman's; and a man must not come close to a man in one garment nor a woman to a woman in one garment», this is a hadith quoted by Muslim Ibn al-Hajjaj.

GI's, Marines, they do not want fellow soldiers, Marines, in the barracks looking at their private parts, ¿can you blame them, seeing that the Prophet himself (PBUH) forbids such looking? Homophobes, they will tell Senators to vote against NDAA with «repeal», they will tell you not to allow cruising on the cruisers, sissies in the Signal Corps, leathersex among the Leathernecks, fisting on the frigates, perversion in the platoons, rimming in the regiments, queens in the Marines, felching at fighter bases, sodomy on the submarines, fellatio in the forts, homophobes will tell you that all of these activities, men are sexually penetrated in these activities, since a man merely *looking* at a man's private parts is disgusting and repugnant, ¿how much more so are these activities disgusting and repugnant? Huh?? Your son's unit, ¿do you want these activities going on in your son's unit, on your son's ship? Huh??

Repression, surely there are men, GI's, sailors, Marines, airmen, who have attraction to the same sex, they are in the units now, but they repress their urge to engage in such activities where they are sexually penetrated or they sexually penetrate their buddies, they repress the disgusting activities, their bunkmates and shipmates, they do not have to throw up from disgust, this repression allows them to serve their country, this repression may well save them from «Gay bowel syndrome» and even HIV/AIDS, repression of repugnant urges is good, «Don't ask, don't tell» encourages repression, O Senators, listen to the homophobes, vote down «repeal» of DADT!

The outcome couldn't be more obvious. The Democrats will cave in on taxes, and the Republicans will block DADT repeal. The Democrats are spineless weaklings, and the Republicans are focused and determined.

So, the Pentagon says it's time, the individual services (with high reservation from USMC) say it's time, the American people say it's time. But the 21st century-challanged Senate thinks it knows better. Where do they get the ego and arrogance? Fools.

Posted by: nyrunner101: "A majority of Senators and the population of the country is against extending the tax cuts for the rich."
-------------------------------------------
You're drug induced hallucinations aside, the latest national polling has 66% of American's FOR keeping the taxes the same for ALL tax brackets. Besides, didn't you know that the Dem leadership NEVER had any intention of ending DADT? If they did, it would have taken them 10 minutes in Feb.'09...

Nothing scares Republicans more in these days of economic uncertainty than whether or not some silver spooned sh*t head is going to have to pay taxes on their multi millions in inheritance and teh gays serving openly in the military.

«With Thursday's failed vote, gay-rights groups will pressure President Obama to take executive action to end the 17-year old law. Obama could order the Justice Department to stop appealing federal court cases challenging the constitutionality of the law or use his powers as commander-in-chief to issue a stop-loss order halting military discharges, and the removal of any gay troops in violation of the ban.

«Executive action by Obama is "imperative in order for him to fulfill his State of the Union promise," said Joe Solomonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign,»

Wait a minute, O Ed O'Keefe, yes, our President Obama did make a State of the Union promise, but ¿did he not also take an inauguration oath to carry out the duties of President of the United States, do these duties under Article II, Section 3 of USA Constitution not say, «he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed»?

And here you are, O Ed O'Keefe, speculating about our President, what he could do to «end the 17-year-old law» instead of taking care that the 17-year-old law be faithfully executed, here you are speculating about how our President Obama could break his oath that he took on January 20, 2009, to faithfully execute the laws! His oath, ¿is not keeping that oath more important than keeping his campaign promise to a pressure group? That campaign promise to the Sodomy Lobby, ¿why is it any more important than his promise to keep unemployment below 8%, huh??

The Senate as such didn't block anything.
The Republicans staged another of their all time record-setting filibusters. In the words of the former Senate Majority leader Bill Frist, the filibuster is "minority tyranny". He was talking about the MUCH smaller number of filibusters launched by Democrats ran in 2004.

I want to see the vote - clearly we lost some Democrats if we got Collins and still didn't get 60.

It is absolutely disgusting that Harry Reid thinks that the Congress has to go home at the end of next week and not work until December 23rd like other working Americans which would have given them plenty of time for four days of debate.

"Republicans might be willing to let homosexuals die for their country once everyone making over $500,000/year is allowed to park in handicapped spaces and is, by law, addressed as 'gov'nor' in an English accent." - John Oliver (Daily Show) on repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Nuke the Senate; who needs this corruption of bigoted self-serving troglytes? Every Republican should be tarred, feathered, and run across the border with citizenship revoked...or maybe just send them to Arizona! And the Democrats are little better, this ugly body is so misrepresented of the country as to be an abomination! Just 15% of the people have 50% of the Senators while the top 50% in population have a mere 10%! This elitist group of royalists are controlled by a minority of a minority; thugs, hostage takers, criminals in heart and mind! Kyle, McCain, Lieberman, Graham, McConnell, etal; cowards one and all; wolverines pissing on America; they make me want to puke!

I'm not sure which is worse...the failure to repeal DADT or Belmont University firing their women's soccer coach because she announced she was having a baby with her same sex partner. Today's generation of kids have much greater things to worry about than what they generally regard as no different than being left-handed but the old guys and gals wearing business attire seem to have problems with an ever-changing society. It's not a liberal-conservative things...it's a human rights thing!

Since the GOP is still playing games in the Senate and are wasting time with their antics. Harry Reid should tell them that no vote on Obama's compromise with the GOP on the tax cuts will happen unless they stop their stupid games. In other words, Hold the tax cut compromise HOSTAGE. Watch how fast they change their tune for their rich friends.

Seems there are 3 types of people in the military: 1) gays, 2) straights that are okay with gays, and 3) straights that are not okay with gays. The three groups are incompatible, one should go. Obviously group 3) should go.

1. It's the height of stupidity to blame the whole Senate. If Reid could have brought this up on an up-or-down vote, he would have. Repubicants are known already to be racist and anti-semitic. Homophobia and treason are surprising?

2. Related to the question above, why do so many of my fellow lefties think Obama shouldn't make the tax cut deal and help the unemployed, but wait for the next Congress and fight for the unemployed? Are they that stupid that they think a GOP House will do ANYTHING for humanity?

It's tme for the Dems to blow up the Repugs beloved tax cuts. Screw'em. The right's rich overlords can do without their gov't funded multi millions in tax cut gifts from their Repug flunkies. We Can't Afford It!

Over the popular will, over the views of the military themselves, over the will of nearly two-thirds of the Senate, over the will of the majority of pretty much everybody, a forty-seat SuperMinority once again presses the THWART button.

Consider Pvt. Manning, an opening homosexual activist in the military who was motivated by his homosexual lifestyle to protest the military and DADT by leaking tens of thousands of classifeed documents. Wow, not that is a great homosexual role model and perfect reason to change DADT. Not.

Besides, I don't know if you served in the military or not, but I did and can tell you that I would not want to be berthed with homosexual, nor see them behaving in the obscene manner that we encounter (just watch a homosexual pride parade). Further, just as homosexuals cannot donate blood because of HIV risks, how are you to identify and segregate them in the military? The end result is that their non-homosexual colleagues could not trust or depend upon them.

No, DADT is not a perfect solution but no one had the stomach at the time to continue an outright ban. Maybe we can set up some perversion corps to allow them to do community service to fulfill the sense of contributing the country...

To nyrunner101: uhhh, whaaa? Take another look at the vote numbers. It wasn't 40 against and 57 for the repeal. It was 57 against. 57 senators who represent a majority of American citizens. 57 senators who will face their constituents for reelection. You're welcome to vote against yours when he/she is due, but I'm guessing they (& their staff) did the math and determined which way the real majority was leaning. Ya might wanna wake up, get off your little liberal cloud, and take a look around to see where your fellow Americans really want this country to go. I mean outside the comfort zone of your like-minded circle and take a pulse reading of the rest of America. Just cuz a certain minor faction gets alot of media attention, doesn't mean it's a majority.

LieToMe: Learn the facts before you post. 57 people voted in favor of the cloture motion (to allow the measure to proceed), and 40 voted against. In the Senate, you must have 60 votes to cut off debate before voting on the measure itself. You invalidated your entire post with your ignorance.

The failure to repeal DADT hurts good men, women, their families, and the nation. Loyal citizens want to serve their country. We need their service. Every Senator who is complicit in the failure to repeal DADT should be ashamed.

Personally I think every gay man or lesbian currently serving in the Armed Forces in silence should openly declare their gayness and get the heck out. The military apparently doesn't want them. Pretty soon they will be instituting a draft to get enough soldiers and watch how many homosexuals there are then.

Too many in Congress are as backward and idiotic as the Taliban. I wonder if the problem is some gay homophobes in Congress. It would explain their ridiculous voting on this subject.

Gays can fight as well as straights so it is really stupid to even have this rule to begin with. We are being shown for the backward provincials we are by the Canadians and the Brits among many others.

You don't know what you're talking about LieToMe. 57 senators voted for cloture, 40 against. However, since it takes 60 votes to begin debate, the motion failed.

So, 40 senators, representing far less than 40 percent of the population, has thwarted the will of the majority as expressed in the Senate, and against majority public opinion, and against majority opinion of the military.

Bill Frist was correct about only a few things, and tyranny of the minority was one.

This is just an eye for an eye, do we realize this?
The house democrats stopped the tax bill that gives the republicans what they want and so they block the DREAM act and DADT repeal, mystery is to me how the government can work with this absurd filibuster rule that basically means the tyranny of the minority.

LieToMe: Learn the facts before you post. 57 people voted in favor of the cloture motion (to allow the measure to proceed), and 40 voted against. In the Senate, you must have 60 votes to cut off debate before voting on the measure itself. You invalidated your entire post with your ignorance.

Posted by: kirbyknight | December 9, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

+++++

I'll bet you would be glad to have just one judge reverse DADT against the wishes of millions of supporters of DADT. The democrats and republicans alike saw the "shellacking" you liberal/socialists got in the last election and the will of the people so they're not giving gays "civil rights" All gays are not black!

Homophobic, not.....where in the Bible does it ever say that homosexuality is a good thing??
Let me tell you, as an active military, special ops commander, there is NO way I would ever stay in the military IF such a law was EVER inacted. There is no tolerance or time for Peter Puffers checking our real men's packages or their JUNK!! Right now, I would assume the Puffers would be harassed, ridiculed, beat up, mauled by unappreciative soldies doing the job of protecting you gay lovers sissy limp wristed Bois...you should stay in ballet, be a shoe saleman, somethign that you can stay with your femine side....just stay out of the military's way...and the vote that we were supposed to receive from Mr. Gates/Pentagon....NEVER HAPPENED...I now of at leat 250 of us that never received the ballot....we were too busy protecting our country here in the desert...they even gave the ballots to non-US military, like civilians working FOR the military, but they werre not active US military personnel...they were getting paid by the company's that hired them in the U.S....it was a farce....

Don't let me EVER hear a US Senator "preching" to the world about democracy or human rights. By this vote, the USA has again refused to get into the 21st century, thanks largely to McCain and his cronies in the "American Christian Taliban" who have spread absolutely amazing untruths.

To kirbyknight: Please point to specifically where in my original post I wrote anything re 'cloture motion' or 'cutting off debate'. I simply pointed out where the majority voted and who they represented. Nice try, though. Wanna try again?

I am very saddened by the Senate vote today. This vote tells me that our government values the rights of gays less than the rights of heterosexual individuals. What right do we have to discrimiate against someone because of the way they were born (not made, not chose to be BUT Born)?? So wrong, so sad.....

Bill Clinton vowed to allow gays in the military on day one of his presidency. After he was elected, I suspect, military leaders privately told him the facts of life. Something like: "Don't do it, Bill, or we take over."

Now we have Obama making a similar vow, military leaders publicly pretending they have changed, and this mess 18 years later. Don't blame this Senate. Blame Clinton, Obama, and whoever really runs this country.

THE MILITARY IS NOT ANOTHER "CEILING" IT IS NOT JUST ANOTHER "FEDERAL" JOB- IT IS THE DEFENSE OF A NATION

NATIONAL SECURITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT SOMEONE'S SOCIAL CALENDAR~

WITH DADT ONE CAN STILL "PURSUE" THEIR SOCIAL PREFERENCES... WITHOUT DISCUSSING IT OPENLY-

DON'T KNOW WHO STRAIGHT FOLKS ARE UNLESS THEY ARE MARRIED OR YOU SEE THEM WITH SOMEONE~

IS AMERICA READY TO PAY FOR ALL THE WOMEN WHO WANT TO BE ARTIFICIALLY INSEMINATED BECAUSE THEY ARE LESBIANS & THEN ALL THE "CHILD CARE" ISSUES ON BOTH SIDES BECAUSE THEY ALL WANT TO BE PARENTS- THEREBY "SINGLE" PARENTS- THEREBY WEAKENING THE DEFENSE OF A NATION - LET'S NOT GET INTO RAISING THE RISK LEVEL & COST OF MEDICAL FOR THOSE WITH "AIDS"

WE HAVE A WELFARE SYSTEM ALREADY- LET'S NOT TURN THE MILITARY INTO ANOTHER ONE~

YES OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE GAYS SERVING OPENLY BUT THEIRS AREN'T RUN LIKE OURS~

THEY DON'T GET THE RESPECT OURS DOES EITHER~

BED HOPPING IS ENOUGH TO KEEP STRAIGHT WITH STRAIGHT FOLKS - NOW WHAT IS UP WITH FOLKS WHO HAVE GENDER IDENTITY ISSUES...

THIS IS NOT A "CONTEST" THIS IS THE DEFENSE OF A NATION- ANYONE WHO WOULD PUT THEIR SELFISH ISSUES OVER THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE IN OUR MILITARY~

To Mr. Bodygrinder. I don't believe you are who you say you are. No special ops commander would conduct himself in such a way. You cannot spell and you have no discipline. So stop impersonating a member of our US military.

You know what I think is sad is that there has been more emphasis on being gay in the military than the actual purpose of just being in the military and why your there...If your gay fine then be that way I don't give a flyin S$%^ but quit being selfish and just DO YOUR JOB! If it's that big a deal to you then get out and go do something you can be gay at!!!!!!

How sad WaPo reporters don't have basic English skills. From the article: "Collins voted with Democrats to proceed on the bill, though by then it was clear her vote would not effect the outcome." Apparently, Mr. O'Keefe never learned that effect is a noun and affect is a verb. How sad the writing has become at WaPo. Kathryn Graham, be pleased you're not here to see this. And I see these lack of English skills on a daily basis on here!

Those who are afraid to serve with gays must be hiding something, most likely even from themselves. If your sexuality was secure you wouldn't be so damned scared and hostile towards gays serving with you and making childish comments and threats to go with that silly macho posturing. You are the real sissy boys. Hell, they are all around you and you don't even notice because they are no different than the rest of us. Canadian and British soldiers aren't afraid of gays and their armed forces do quite well. Grow up.

How sad WaPo reporters don't have basic English skills. From the article: "Collins voted with Democrats to proceed on the bill, though by then it was clear her vote would not effect the outcome." Apparently, Mr. O'Keefe never learned that effect is a noun and affect is a verb. How sad the writing has become at WaPo. Kathryn Graham, be pleased you're not here to see this. And I see these lack of English skills on a daily basis on here!

Those who are afraid to serve with gays must be hiding something, most likely even from themselves. If your sexuality was secure you wouldn't be so damned scared and hostile towards gays serving with you and making childish comments and threats to go with that silly macho posturing. You are the real sissy boys. Hell, they are all around you and you don't even notice because they are no different than the rest of us. Canadian and British soldiers aren't afraid of gays and their armed forces do quite well. Grow up.

bodygrinder: you are welcome to resign your commission at any time. If you are enlisted, please feel free not to re-up. If you are so fearful of serving next to an open homosexual, you are of the strong quality our military needs.

'"I think the president strongly believes that one of two things is going to happen: Either Congress is going to solve this legislatively, or the courts are going to solve this," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday before the vote. "The policy is going to come to an end"'

And Obama will sit on the sidelines and do nothing. Making promises his butt won't cash.

DEAR PEOPLE.......PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL THE STUDIES CONCERNING DON'T ASK - DON'T TELL WERE CONDUCTED BY THOSE WHO NEVER SERVED IN THE ENLISTED RANKS OF THE MILITARY. THEY HAVE NO CONCEPT OF WHAT LIVING WITH GAYS, SHOWERING WITH GAYS, EATING WITH GAYS AND CONDUCTING MILITARY OPERATIONS WITH GAYS AMOUNTS TO.
WHATEVER YOUR OPINIONS ARE AND WHATEVER DECISIONS YOU REACH REGARDING GAYS IN YOUR PERSONAL LIFE, IT IS NOT THE SAME FOR THE ENLISTED RANKS IN THE MILITARY. THEY OBJECT TO IT AND FOR ALL INTENT THIS IS THE ONLY STUDY THAT MEANS A THING.
ONE THING FOR SURE.......
ADMIRAL MULLINS AND SECRETARY GATES DO NOT HAVE TO SLEEP IN THE SAME BARRACKS OR SHOWER WITH THEM OR EAT WITH THEM. RANK HAS IT'S PRIVILEGES AND THEY ARE IMMUNE.
PLEASE DON'T TELL ME THAT GAYS WOULD NOT CONTINUE TO HIT ON STRAIGHT GUYS AND WHAT IF THE GAY IS A SARGENT OR SOMEONE OF AUTHORITY. IT WILL NEVER WORK AND IF THE POWERS TO BE IN COMMAND POSTS MAKE IT HAPPEN THEN WE AS A COUNTRY WILL SUFFER THE LOSS OF STRAIGHT GUYS WHO REFUSE TO SERVE, EAT, SLEEP AND SHOWER WITH GAYS.

Posted by: NoDonkey
Well, the women and the minorities now get all the cushy stateside jobs, are there enough to give the gays?
After all, it's only fair to deploy the same troops to wars time and time again, while women, gays and minorities sit stateside, polishing their fingernails.
And when they're actually asked to do their jobs, they can cry "discrimination" and go back to polishing their fingernails.
Outstanding idea. Can't figure out why this hasn't been enacted earlier.
********************
Judging from your post you don't seem to be able to figure out anything beyond snack time and naps.

magicDog1 writes: "The outcome couldn't be more obvious. The Democrats will cave in on taxes, and the Republicans will block DADT repeal. The Democrats are spineless weaklings, and the Republicans are focused and determined."
-----------
Yes. And dead wrong on virtually every issue.

Lie to Me: You either can't read English or (more likely) are deliberately misrepresenting what happened to score cheap shots.

From the opening paragraph of Mr. O'Keefe's report: "Senators voted 57 to 40 to advance the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which contained language ending the ban."

Because Sen. Collins was the only Republican to vote in favor, proponents fell three votes short of the 60 required to invoke cloture and proceed to a vote.
Even so, a clear majority favored repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, refuting your baseless claim to the contrary.

I am not surprised by this at all. The great Heterosexual Warriors in congress hold dear their trimphant exclusivity on making better combat morbidity and mortality subjects than gays. Perhaps we should allow them to continue to have a greater chance to die than our gay brethren. Evidently, those who tortured McCain had it right...an ugly example of the All American He Man who has complained about it about for years. He deserved it.

To the person whose rant included the line, DON'T KNOW WHO STRAIGHT FOLKS ARE UNLESS THEY ARE MARRIED OR YOU SEE THEM WITH SOMEONE~, sorry but you really don't know much. There are lots of married gays out there and they all have friends of the opposite sex.

Also if you think other countries armed services aren't respected because they allow gays openly then you are quite delusional. The US is openly derided all over for our attitude on this subject. Our position on gays is nearly as low as Iran, Pakistan, the Taliban, etc.

This is another example of the media trying to distract us from real problems like:
- Politicians being bought by special interests, like oil and drug companies and the banks
- The increase in debt to both citizens and other countries
- Industries shutting down factories because they can make more profits by buying cheaper overseas
- People losing their homes and their jobs
- A food supply in danger from greedy producers and their chemical industry partners

The list goes on.
By the way, if DADT gets repealed, does that mean they can 'ask' again?

@ISWEDE: I guess you can't contain yourself around women, then? Every woman you see you have sex with and/or rape, right? Somehow, gays cannot control themselves. They just rape and can't act professionally at all by your view. Please explain this further and what backing evidence you have (besides perhaps prison where maybe you were someone's sweetie).

The ignorance and hatred exhibited by Our Fellow Countrymen with respect to people who are homosexual is shocking. Of course, those who who don't know and take their opinions from their authoritarian church teachings would throw away perfectly usable military assets rather than employ them to win our "very necessary" wars. The same people who are filled with hatred and ignorance also opine that war is the natural condition of man, and that American exceptionism dictates that America throw money and warriors up against religous zealots until those zealots are wiped off the planet, if ever. But they fear what may happen when men attracted to men are permitted to serve. Does that attraction decrease the central tenet of military service? Follow orders. Present yourself as a professional member of the military. No bone jumping.

ISWEDE, my brother served in the US Army for 31 years and never had a problem serving with anyone gay or straight. He knew several gays that served quietly and never bothered to turn them in because they didn their jobs. He wasn't afraid because his sexuality was secure. Your hysterical rant makes me wonder if you are hiding something.

While I think gays and lesbians should have the same rights as straights but when you talk about being in an environment where they would be exposed to naked members of the same sex that's where I have a problem.

In this country we allow female reporters into mens locker rooms where they are exposed to naked men. No one seems to have a problem with that but there is no sport that allows men into female locker rooms when there is a chance of seeing women in the buff. I guess women, unlike men, are able to control themselves. If a man is exposed to a naked female and can't be expected to control himself why is it that a gay man can be exposed to nude men and expected to be able to control himself? Don't gay men look upon men the same way straight men look upon women? Or are gay men different?

Treating the military like a corporation is wrong....it is NOT a corporation. At the end of a military day at work, you might just adjourn to cramp living quarters and shower facilities. In corporate America, you'll return home to your respective life styles and it works just fine. The military should not be treated like a corporation....next up, unions and strikes...think about it.

gay men are diff then hetero men. Gay men can shower with there sexual preference and "turn off there feelings"..hence the gay men line "Just because yr naked in the shower with me, nothing crosses my mind so you shoudnt flatter yrself"...but what happens when a hetero male enters a shower full of women and tries that line ?? gay men are special and deserve special rights. And if you think otherwise yr a closed minded bigot.

Well Jimof1913, Joseph A. Rehyansky a magistrate has been quoted by The Daily Caller as saying that men are rapists by nature among other stupid quotes so that could be why. He also said that lesbians should be allowed to serve so that male soldiers could have a chance to straighten them out with corrective rape. Sorry but that would confirm their lesbianism and possibly turn a straight woman gay.

who cares.....it will be taken up next week or next year with the new crew.

the single most important bill that must be introduced is the "Compromise Bill".

and Senate goes on Xmas vacation on the 17th. That's one week folks. Not enough time to take into consideration all they want to. DREAM got voted down, Don't Ask Don't Tell got voted down. And if the START legislation is to be introduced, it will not get 60 votes either.

The Republicans are determined to do anything the can to deny Obama and the Democrats a win on anything. The courts should end the DADT policy ASAP. The policy is unconstitutional, and the GOP will still not repeal it. LET THE COURTS DO IT.

And no, screwjob23, the vote was not bipartisan...it was very partisan.

I'm just out of words. Disgusted and appalled doesn't cover it. I'm truly ashamed of this country. What's even more shameful is that these men and women are willing to die for a country that treats them this way whilst ~god fearing conservatives~ mostly sit around on their arses and listen to a bloated drug addict draftdodger (Limbaugh) for their marching orders. F*ck them.

Silly Dims, by all means try and change the precedence of motions rule XXII in the Senate. Ending a debate on a regular motion requires a three-fifths majority vote in the Senate; ending debate on a proposal to amend Senate rules requires a two-thirds majority vote.

Also see rule V SUSPENSION AND AMENDMENT OF THE RULES:

"The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules."

Good luck coming up with the 2/3 majority needed to amend the filibuster rule.

"A majority of Senators and the population of the country is against extending the tax cuts for the rich."
The question should then be asked; Are you willing to lose your job for the sake of raising the taxes on the rich?
The rich 5% earners who average 160k a year pay about 60% of the income tax bill. the other 95% pay only 40% of the tax bill. If you increase expense on the employer to a higher level of tax they will have to make cuts somewhere and the first place is your job!
On gays in the military; They are already serving in the military and should not be treated any different then others. If you are hetero sexual you can openly serve. Why should it be any different for gays? They put their lives on the line like there straight counterparts. They should be afforded the same rights and not have to hide who they are. Other countries allow for open gay enrollment in the armed forces. They have no problems in their military as a result of the open gay policies. Why should we be any different from others. It is time to get into this century and out of the cave. They should be able to serve openly.

Isn't it pathetic that a certain number of Senators think it's perfectly OK for gays to put their lives on the line for everyone in the country but then deny them the right to even identify themselves as who they are. It is a pathetic and cowardly group who has blocked this important issue. What are they afraid of?

What world are these Senators living in when they're in favor of discrimination and won't lift a finger or cast a vote to stop it? They'll wave the American flag with one hand while using the other to show the door to gay citizens who want to serve the nation! Their refusal to do away with DADT is both shameful and irresponsible.

Women in the military have areas where they can get away from the advances of men, men have areas where they can get away from the wiles of women. There would have to be areas where both men and women who are straight could get away from the advances of gays and lesbians.

Any young military guy (don't know how it is for the women) who has spent any time in one of our cities where the gay population is high understands this.

Once again, the senate republicans prove they are nothing more than a self-centered, corrupt gang of thugs and an impediment to the government of We The People.

Their actions are despicable -- the sort of actions that usually only occur in dictatorships and faux 'peoples republics' like China.

These republicans-in-name-only -- so called 'United States Senators' -- are nothing more than traitors engaged in subterfuge to thwart the majority will of the public. As such, they are self-serving scum.

The system is working as the founders designed it. Populations can be reasonable in one season, and practically insane in the next. Welcome to American homosexual insanity. When the herd is being driven over the cliff of self-destruction, called by trumpets driven by the very lips of Satan himself, as it was in this case, the Senate was designed to slow things down. And they slowed things down. Democracy is not a suicide pact you know.

America needs to stop playing games with its future; for in a universe where there are more galaxies than there are people, we are not special, nor "exceptional", just people operating beneath the sophistication of our political system and its unlimited potential. It's just sad that so many people, with advanced education, and economic means, are just as lost as a "crack head" in the business of selling "rocks"!

Oh please kcooper35 it is no problem. All you have to do is say 'no thanks, not interested'. I've said it myself to a few lesbians, it's not that hard to do and most gays don't even bother approaching straight people. Most other countries are able to deal with it just fine. Are you saying US soldiers are less then they are?

Considering the sheer amount of ignorant vitriol pouring out of the "tea Party" right wing neo-fascists the response to this has been fairly measured. BTW bodygrinder: You are a disgrace to the uniform and probably just a delusional self hating queer deep down.

Don't you love the way "bodygrinder" (interesting name, full of sublimated issues perhaps) and other Taliban types here cite a 2,000-year-old book in which "the Lord" commands parents to stone their misbehaving kids to death as "evidence" that homosexuality is immoral?

If American "Christians" didn't exist and someone created them as characters in a movie, no producer would accept the script. They are just too cartoonish and it would be unbelievable that anyone could be that moronic for real. But, here we are. Pretty amazing.

I can't find ANY poll that supports your POV that most people support extending tax cuts for the wealthy. Every poll I can find tells the opposite story--most adults/most people support the ending of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

The rest of your post is BS as well. A vote was taken today on whether a bill to end DADT should move forward. The Republicans voted solidly to oppose this. This is not a surprise and it has nothing to do with rushing the issue through Congress. The Republicans will never support ending DADT...at least not until their feet are held to the fire.

This is an old cultural battle that we should not be fighting anymore. The courts should end the DADT policy NOW.

McCain and his spineless clown brethren should all rot in a dark place with no sympathy. We ask no question of anyone who wants to serve, but would discriminate against them for being what some don't like. This action will result in the court system slamming DADT to the ground in one big thud and then McCain, et.al. will just have to shut the hell up. Our troops can handle it, but some lame senator can't, what a shame that a "hero" can't be as brave as a gay guy.

This is incredible. More of doing nothing from our lame-duck government. What else are they going to not do anything about?
check out my blog for people who are fed up with the way things are going. 800feet.blogspot.com

Heterosexuals retain the legal right to shield their bodies away from those who may become sexually attracted to them.

The senate has declined to extend "droit de seigneur" to gays and lesbians. Gays and lesbians do serve in the military, but they have no legal right to be in areas where heterosexuals sleep, bathe, and dress.

Quite right B202. That same book okays slavery provided they are not from your country (gee, I can go to Canada and bring back a slave)and says you have to be purified each time you have an ejaculation or menses, etc. Also says you can't eat food over 3 days old, eat any meat with blood in it sorry but blood is in the meat), have two or more crops in a field, that a raped woman is unfit for marriage and other stupid stuff like that. It also spends a horrendous amount of lines on how to do a burnt offering.

Female and male soldiers do not live, shower and sleep in the same quarters because physiological reactions would cause difficulties. The same would occur if homosexuals served openly and that would cause serious problems. I served in the US Army in a small company which had two homosexuals. There were no problems. Why change a system that worked and works well?

Once again, the senate republicans prove they are nothing more than a self-centered, corrupt gang of thugs and an impediment to the government of We The People.

Their actions are despicable -- the sort of actions that usually only occur in dictatorships and faux 'peoples republics' like China.

These republicans-in-name-only -- so called 'United States Senators' -- are nothing more than traitors engaged in subterfuge to thwart the majority will of the public. As such, they are self-serving scum.

mhr614, your own statement is contradictory. You claim in one line that gay men would be a serious problem because of physiological reactions yet you also claim to have served in a small company with two gays without a problem.

Personally if you have a problem with someone having a physiological reaction then I think you have a problem you are hiding from yourself.

So....a dumb question. If it is so easy for the minority party to completely derail the majority party's agenda, then how come we blame Bush and the Republicans for the problems we now face? If the minority Republicans are so successful at stopping the Democrats, then don't the Democrats share equal blame for the problems of 8 yrs of Bush?

Why doesn't the Supreme Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces merely put forth an Executive Order to end the practice. Why is this so hard to do? It ends the issue bickering and frees up the Congress to work on other issues. The Pentagon, Military and majority of Americans want DADT ended, do it!

But people who are criticizing the Senate for blocking repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, frankly, should emigrate out of the US. Go to Europe, please.

Homosexuals do not belong in the Armed Forces of the United States,...not at all. Yes, they are there serving now,. I know, BUT they should leave if they cannot bear the "awful burden" of keeping their proclivities private.

It is a privilege to serve in the military, not a right of citizenship alone. The Constitution gives homosexuals no right to flaunt their characteristic, disruptive, and dangerous behaviors.

I do not expect many Senators who have never served in the armed services to understand this basic point. They think military service is like working in the post office or a school library. It is not.

As far as Mullen and Gates supporting this,....they are just following orders from the President. They should have resigned rather than follow this order,...loyalty to the nation should always come before partisan loyalty.

This total nonsense being pushed by the left wing, homosexuality, etc., is part of the reason Democrats lost so badly at the polls in November. Their antics in this lame duck session are proof of their profound delusions.

And, I'll wager, the courts end up affirming the DADT policy. National Security, national survival, comes before the rights of any narrow sodomite fringe to bring his or her same sex friend to the office or base Christmas party.

reid and pelosi, and their far-leftist ilk, are completely crazy,...utterly out of their minds. I feel no respect for them at all. NONE.

This is not about gays in the military. Many, many servicemen and servicewomen in the military right now are gays. Anyone who thinks differently needs to be quickly and abruptly disabused of that false impression.

This is about everyone being honest about servicemen and servicewomen in the military who are gay. Clearly, being honest about gays in the military is something that the Army and Marine commanding officers and the Republican Senate prefer not to be.

So as I'm reading this thing, the US military, in which I did once serve in wartime; is to remain the ONLY military in the whole, wide world where anyone cares whether it's girls or boys who turn you on... I thought what's important was making a contribution; or if you're lucky, at least seeing a legitimate democracy where there wasn't a chance. Circumstances are always changing but this "policy" is making this issue full of political fallout. Very, very divisive.

1/16th of 1%: That’s the number of active duty personnel that were discharged in 2009 because of matters surrounding the (DADT) policy. According to Marine Corps data there were only 78 discharges out of 203,095 active duty personnel for DADT matters. If this number is indicative of all the other military branches it means that less than one sixteenth of one percent of the military has been directly impacted by the policy.

So for the sake of one sixteenth of one percent of our military the whole country and the military have to stop to debate the merits of permitting homosexuals to serve openly in the military in a time of war? Obviously this is NOT the reason for the policy change. It is simply one more step in the attempt to legitimize what is a sinful and dangerous lifestyle.

Three times. That’s the degree of risk, extrapolated from the Pentagon’s own reports on sexual misconduct that presently exists in the military that you will be sexually assaulted by someone of your own sex. Does anyone really think taking the fear of discharge for homosexual conduct away will make the barracks and showers safer for our sons and daughters?

Eighteen. That’s the number of hearings that were held when DADT was first enacted. Why the hurry to push through such a dramatic change in policy? Has there been any new proof that “homosexualizing” our military will benefit our ability to defeat our enemies and see our soldiers come home alive? Shouldn’t that be the most important question we ought to be asking?

24%: That’s the number of military personnel who said they will leave the military or think about leaving sooner than planned.

89% The number of military personnel who could not say that having open homosexuality in the field or at sea would be positive or very positive.

95%: The number of military personnel that could not affirm that changing the policy will improve moral.

Would we ever implement any other policy in light of these numbers? Most adamantly not.

What I don't understand is why gay's would want to go into the military... I mean I'm straight but I'd think about it if the military was 99% female. I think the military should be all about military and I can't see where sexual preference pivots in that.

Anyway it is over if Judge Sessions (R-AL) says it is. And when the new Congreffs takes over next month he may be right. That would include gay marriage. The Log Cabinites have spoken....

I am amazed that those who have never served a day feel that they should declare what is best for a military engaged in two wars.

I saw the claim that a survey indicated that the military had not problem with repeal. But I note that the "survey" of the military had low response rates from the combat arms branches: Army and the USMC. It had high response from DHS (USCG). The questions were biased toward repeal. The analysis did not account for its bias. It was a typical ruse of a survey with a predetermined outcome.

The new media and the White House want repeal, but they have no concept of the impact on recruitment, or on the impact on families with deployed members. Most worrisome will be the impact of a repeal on Henry V's concept of "Band of Brothers." You won't want to lead the group because you aren't going to be sure how or with what they will "cover your six."

laurated, if yr so cool with people having a physiological reaction then i guess you woudnt mind sharing a shower w/men or how about a middle aged man leading a girl scout troop or coed showers and lockers in high school. There is a reason for limiting "physiological reactions". Its not a sexual free for all as gays seem to think it s/b. How about poligamy or incest ? cool with that ? or are limits only what you define limits to be. NAMBLA was just "love" between men and boys + a physiological reaction...what could be wrong with that ?

MCunningham122 asks, Why doesn't the Supreme Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces merely put forth an Executive Order to end the practice. Why is this so hard to do?”

The part of the policy that can be ended by executive order is what allows homosexuals to serve if they keep their sexual orientation to themselves. This is DOD policy, that enforces an atmosphere of respect for homosexuals, and non-pursuit in terms of the activities of DOD investigative and security services.

The underlying law, Title 10, Section 654 is what gives the military discharge authority over homosexuals that come out and identify themselves. It should be noted that Title 10, Section 654, embodies a no-tolerance spirit in relationship to homosexuals in military service. The law declares homosexuality to be incompatible with military service. This law can only be repealed through Congressional action.

As long as this law is on the books, the military leadership is duty-bound to obey it. If there is evidence that an individual is engaging in homosexual activity the law requires the discharge of that individual.

Yes, we need more perverts in the military like the one that just released all the secret docs because HIS LIFE WAS NOT GOING THE WAY HE WANTED.
Everyone who loveS homosexual acts, buggering, teabagging, deepthroating, now wants to do this in the military. So, are they going to dress off duty like the ones in SF, with leather, dog collars, bare asses, etc.?
Time for a code red.
Don't like conforming to the UCMJ, DON'T LIE AND JOIN THE MILITARY, THEN BLAME EVERYONE ELSE THAT YOU ARE LYING!

if yr a hetero man and the military was 99% women and you all get to bunk/shower and live together...what straight man would not want to join ? remember when they allowed men into all women colleges ? those men were in heavan . Wonder if behind all that "service talk" gay men feel the same way, I suspect they do. Yeah hetero men went to all female colleges to learn...but the perks of 99% women were great.

if yr a hetero man and the military was 99% women and you all get to bunk/shower and live together...what straight man would not want to join ? remember when they allowed men into all women colleges ? those men were in heavan . Wonder if behind all that "service talk" gay men feel the same way, I suspect they do. Yeah hetero men went to all female colleges to learn...but the perks of 99% women were great.

Use whatever words you like Dims: Joe Manchin (D-WV) voted on the GOP side, as I said would happen. Use whatever words you like to describe that, Dims: you still did not get the necessary 60 votes.

There is one more week to go in the lame duck session. One more week. Then there will be 5 more GOP senators seated, 5 fewer Dims, and of course Manchin will vote with the GOP on this one. If it ever gets to the Senate next year: first you have to get it through the House. Good luck with that.

Quote from Sen Reid:
"Discrimination has never served America well," he said, adding the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell" hurts morale."
/>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And I'm just wondering....HOW does it hurt morale? Are Marines lying awake in their cots at night because they can't serve with gays? Are Navymen hesitating to re-enlist because gays aren't allowed to file their medical paperwork?

Reading the comments someof these people have posted makes me realize how idiotic some people are! Gays are no different than anyone else. And unlike some people I realize that just like a straight person gay people don't find everyone they see attractive and have the same exact impulse control as a straight person and wouldnt be discriminated against just because of some century old republicans belief that they will try to screw everyone in their barracks or platoons!

snapple you are an idiot. A physiological reaction is just that. You don't have to do anything about it and if you have a problem with some guy's reaction when they make no effort to touch you then I think you have a problem...in your head. Insecre much?

Quote from Sen Reid:
"Discrimination has never served America well," he said, adding the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell" hurts morale."
/>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And I'm just wondering....HOW does it hurt morale? Are Marines lying awake in their cots at night because they can't serve with gays? Are Navymen hesitating to re-enlist because gays aren't allowed to file their medical paperwork?

Lauratd, yr logic is non existent....so if you have a couple of guys in with a couple of women in the shower, why would anyone object to that ? if they keep there hands to themselves ? we all know why women object and why men woudnt be allowed in womens showers, regardless of "beauty /attractiveness" so why are gays so special ? its basic human nature ...gays are no different...gays keep saying that but they want to be treated "special"...no logic whatsover.

It would appear from reading most of the posts on this site that the majority of you have never served. As a Marine I can tell you that allowing the gays to serve openly will release a lot of hostility upon them, remember most of the Marines are 17-26 year olds living in close quarters. Those gays that want to go "queeny" in the ranks will probably spend most of their time in the hospital. I am quite sure that they will be encouraged to flaunt their sexuality by the activists that have be pushing for the change. The reality is that 68% of the combat troops do'nt want repeal. That should be the only vote that counts and not a bunch of DA'S that are not serving or are non-combat arms "rear Echelon". It not about being homophobic. The push for this has more to do with pushing the gay agenda thy the good of the service.

As a public service I would appreciate if you started listing names when you report these votes. The press obsesses on what the President should do or not do, but rarely actually gives names for votes. Maybe if you would start documenting this for people elections could be based on track records in voting, brought to you by your responsible Fourth Estate.

If readers had to see over and over and over again the actual pattern of systematic obstruction in the Senate, maybe they would become more informed voters. It seems many Senators are not afraid of shameless acts because they never face the consequences. It would be nice if the media stepped up to the plate here...

There is a whole lot issues more than just the gay person's 'job performance' to think about before any chance of repealing DADT can happen.
This issue has never been just about a gay person's job performance. If this was just about 'job performance' the gays would be content to serve in the military while maintaining their privacy about their sexual preference. Gays have turned this issue into a 'battlefield' to be 'won'.

There are all of the gay 'social' issues to consider, other issues such as housing assignments, healthcare issues, and maintaining safety, changes to military policy to guarantee fairness and equality to other soldiers. A new code of conduct would have to be developed.

Gays will not be content until they have destroyed the military's mission, our country's security and respectability among other nations. Gays also want to destroy respectable aspects of our society by forcing their aberrent lifestyle to become the dominant 'culture'.

Ending DADT, 'normalizing' gay "marriage" and gay 'civil unions' are not good changes to move the country 'forward'.....All they will do is cause further decline in society as a whole.

There may, however, be hope that the rest of society will move on and leave the Senate behind. Kind of like how cannabis law is becoming - as long as no other harm is being done, no one will bother to prosecute.

There may, however, be hope that the rest of society will move on and leave the Senate behind. Kind of like how cannabis law is becoming - as long as no other harm is being done, no one will bother to prosecute.

AIPACiswar, right on. My brother and I, and a friend, were in GT many years ago on Halloween night and nearly killed a marine who broke my bro's leg while he was peeing in an alley. We still don't know why he attacked him. The only reason that basterd is still alive is because I had to pull the other guy off of his as he was smashing his face with his bloodied fists.

Last year the Supreme Court refused to hear a case challenging the constiutional basis of the Don't Ask Don’t Tell law. The Court's reasoning was that the Constitution grants the power to regulate the military to Congress.

Last year the Supreme Court refused to hear a case challenging the constitutional basis of the Don't Ask Don’t Tell law. The Court's reasoning was that the Constitution grants the power to regulate the military to Congress.

srewjob and his dimwitted friends are an example of what reason and fairness are up against. Let's once again blame the majority for not garnering the votes to win. We have come to assume that Republicans will oppose anything that might help Obama. OK. They will. But there is more on this blog criticizing the Dems than criticizing the true Neanderthals.

The only reason gays want to 'serve openly' in the military is to 'serve' their own agenda.
If this was just about 'job performance', their sexual preference would NEVER be considered. Gays have purposely brought their sexuality into a workplace where sexuality isn't welcome. Once you put on that uniform, you are a soldier. Not a 'gay' soldier, not a 'straight' soldier. Your job is to protect your country, not to force your personal sexual agenda upon others. So shut up about ending DADT, gays.

Maddog: An Executive order can't change the fundamental law that Bans homosexuals. Only Congress can change this. You are as badly misinformed about the constitution as the Tea Party types if you think otherwise.

And just who is the "we" in your statement of we run the military? I amsorry are you a general? President? Anything like that? Then you run nothing but your own world. I am in the Air Force and you forget or probably never knew because you have not served, that the military is not just like the rest of the world. You can't just leave because you don't like the way something is going. You are stuck, the military has lots of rules and laws that in the outside world that no one would even think about getting in trouble for. If this passes it needs to go slow or bad things can happen. Yes there will be some that flaunt their sexuality cause they want to make a statement which will cause problems. People signed up knowing certain facts are true. Changing the facts should automatically give people the option to stay or go and a severance to go since some were planning on making the military a career under these rules. By you saying kick the bigots out it is clear that it is not about manpower or being able to do the job to you. It is about making a statement. If it were about manpower and doing a good job then kicking these people out is the same as keeping gays from openly serving.

1) The left cares not at all about access to the military they publicly despise

2) "Gays" in the military is to undercut the institution
...(just like Iraq was the wrong war and Afghanistan was the 'right' war to the left when Bush was in office, today Afghanistan is less loved by the left.....)

3) Homosexuality is as biologically normal as pedophilia or necrophilia.

4) Homosexuality was rightly classed as a mental illness until a 3 to 2 vote by the governing body of American psychiatry in the early 1970's at a convention where no papers on related topics were presented...a "global warming" bit of political science...

In short, homosexuals in the military is a divisive straw-man assault by the left.

Typical reponses from typical liberals who know little of reality. I do by the way know several gay and lesbian couple and singles and most of them agree that flaunting sexuality in the ranks would be bad news, several of them have served and one I have known since I pulled him out of the rubble after a rocket attack in Nam, he even wrote a book about being gay in the Marine Corps. You and people like you are generally just to rabid to listen to any opinon other then you own.

I am grateful to the Republicans for sticking to their guns. As a Marine veteran of the Korean War [1951-52],and a fifty-three week fox-hole dweller, I would not want to dig-in with a homosexual. Ending DADT will empty combat units of real men and replace them with--whatever.

sgtusmcvietve: There is a difference between being open, and flaunting anything. To bad you and your friend don't see it that way. It's also to bad that you would continue the dishonor tot eh uniform that DADT demands of those who wish to serve their country.

Also to the comments that gays are just like straights in relation to not wanting to screw every guy/girl they see and are not attracted to every guy/girl they see. Are you saying straight people want to screw every person they see of the opposite sex? They find all of them attractive? No they don't yet we seperate males and females still just in case. So if we seperate males and females why not seperate gays? Are they different or are they the same as straight people with the same urges and control? Can't have it both ways. Either they are the same or not.

Dishonor the uniform, U really are a nut case. You know nothing of honor or sacrifice unless you have worn the uniform yourself, which I highly doubt. If you did, then it is you who bring dishonor to yourself for even making such a comment.

I suffer from a medical condition that made me ineligible to serve. My family, however is full of decorated, honored veterans. Most of them think you are full of it. I do understand honor, and the dishonor of forcing people to lie in order to serve. Then again, they served in your Senior Service and tend to hold "floating bellhops" in low esteem. Until now, I tended to not believe them. Thank you for setting me strait.

Some of these people want to have it both ways. Brown from Massachusetts claims to be for the bill but voted against it in the cloture vote. The same for a Senator from Alaska. And a new Senator claims he is for repeal but he hasn't had time to talk to the people in his state.

Hey folks, this is the Senate here. You're either for it or against it. A cloture vote kills a bill just as much as a No vote on the bill. Quit trying to fool us. Just say what you really believe and let the votes fall where they may.

I wonder if friarjohn was trying to make sense. So are you saying that people who do drugs and lie about it should be ok also? You brought up the lying to be able to serve. Both options are illegal under the UMCJ. Both you have to lie about to serve. So where do we draw the line at letting people do what they want in the military? Some drugs are not allowed to be used in the military yet they is nothing wrong with using them on the outside world

Americans believe in freedoms and liberties until put to the test. Apparently, if they do not like an individual or a group, such as homosexuals, then their behaviour suggests that the rights of these minorities should be ignored or suspended.

In part, this is based on 'approval' and 'disapproval' of minority individuals and the groups to which they belong. Those that meet with disapproval have diminished rights.

Although there are strong arguments supporting the separation of Church and State many Americans want exceptions to those ideas. Although the Constitution does not distinguish between people who are heterosexual and those who are homosexual many Americans ('I believe in the Constitution') believe in discrimination and they will ignore the Constitution and the protection of individuals and the concept of equal treatment if it goes against the outcomes that they prefer.

America has many great thinkers of which it can be proud and who are admired by Americans and the rest of the world. It also has its fair share of bigots and many of them seek election to the Congress.

Until principle and the rule of law are allowed to prevail over sentiment society will remain mean spirited and abusive.

sgtusmcvietvet: I lack all reason? I've said anything unreasonable. I simply disagree with you and think you are not only wrong, but sadly so. As for the rest of what you say, you only demean yourself further by assuming that you represent anything but the mind of one biggoted little marine.

Gunnerb52: You comparison is so puerile and vapid I can only assume that you too served in the Junior Branch of the Navy.

If the minorities always got their way Aryan Nations would have all non whites back as slaves or killed. If Minorities have their way their would be no religion. Sometimes minorities have to stay minorities to keep the world running.

if yr a hetero man and the military was 99% women and you all get to bunk/shower and live together...what straight man would not want to join ? remember when they allowed men into all women colleges ? those men were in heavan . Wonder if behind all that "service talk" gay men feel the same way, I suspect they do. Yeah hetero men went to all female colleges to learn...but the perks of 99% women were great.

My reptilian CPU would urge me NOT to join the military as it is like an all boy's school. Who'd WANT that? Not natural. All this horse dookey about serving your country through killing brown people is also troubling. I suspect most are looking for adventure, a career or an extension of high school football. Maybe it is subliminal homoerotic. But for me, I hated gym class.. I hated jock straps and sweaty dudes. I refused to be humped by wrestlers. But I was a champion motor crosser... always lots of babes at the track, especially if you won.

First, kcooper35 said separate facilities would be needed due to "advances" made by gay or lesbian service members. If unwelcome advances are made by ANY service member toward any other service member, there are existing laws against that. Use them.
Second, politics should end the night of the election.
Third, our Senators are NOT doing the job we generously pay them to do, which is to legislate for the best interests of the American people. They are shamefully neglecting their primary responsibility. This is unconscionable! Pass it and be done with it!

Discrimination is permitted and condoned in the military....if you are blind, please don't try to join up; if you are missing a finger, you need not apply; if you are too heavy, not in this military; too short, too tall, no way. These "discriminations" have been going on forever and for good reasons. A VERY recent change is permitting those wounded in action to remain on active duty if THEY want to...that's a good change. So, openly serving gays have been discriminated against as well....the latest report said it all, "Troops in Combat situations favor leaving the current DADT system in place by a 2-1 margin." And that's what matters.

Part of the problem with getting anything passed is there is so much crap attached to it that you can't just vote on the one subject. Each seperate issue should be voted on independant of each other. Then you would get a clear idea of who is doing or not doing their job.

Shayladane and who said repealing the don't ask don't tell is in the best interests of the American people. Each side has their own experts that say the exact opposite of each other.

I think that the best interests are the ones it directly affects right now. Let the ones signed up right now vote. Then you will see if the majority truly wants it. Which I believe they do not. Most of the people that talk around the tables do not want it.

They can make a survey mandatory, they have done it before then we shall see what the voices say.

WHile it is a disgrace that there are 40 republicon bigots that part is not really shocking. What IS shocking is that somethihg that passes 57 to 40 is considered a loss in the senate as long as there are 40 republicons there marching in KKK like jackbooted unison screaming no no no and shafting the American people, our nation's security, and our Constitution.

The Democratic tax propsal won 53 36 and 53 37 last week too, but the hostage taking terrorists in the gop maintain that 60 is the minimum to move any piece of legislation.

Clear majorities voting in favor is no longer sufficient in the insane world of republicon oligarchy.

Do you want to experience i-nterracial da-ting? Recommend here...
{—–W W W- blackWhitepassion -℃0 M——}.
It is an interracial dating site for s-exy singles of all races.
there has been thousands of single members online.

By now, it should be plainly obvious to all that Congressional Republicans do not care about anything except the welfare of the wealthy, which of course includes themselves. They could care less about civil rights or anything that doesn't increase their wealth. They will sacrifice the civil rights of an entire group of citizens in order to ensure that their tax cuts remain secure .... "as all Republicans except Collins held firm on a vow to block any legislation that does not address tax cuts or government spending." What in the world does this vote have to do with any financial issues at all?

All this reveals is that the Republicans in Congress are evil, evil, evil beyond redemption. It is time that we cast them out of the temple, they are no better than the money changers that Christ cast out. Republican as a group have shown themselves to be without souls, without compassion, without humanity. The so-called "Christian" preachers that advocate Republican candidates and Republican ideology are just as evil. Unfortunately, God did not engineer a way for these loons to pay for their sins before they go to heaven, which means that the world has to suffer for their sins.

Come on guys! Let's give the Republicans some credit for standing up for their principals. That a sign of courage and honor if if I don't agree with their position. That's more than I can say about President Obama and a lot of Democrats who seem to push principals aside in lieu political compromise.
That might sound good but it only leads to a bad outcome and leaving people like myself confused and frustrated, realizing that all the blabber about "change we can believe in" was just that; blabber.

"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of."

I am so glad that the Senate is stalled on this. The new Commandant of the Marine Corps has recognized that this repeal of DADT will have deleteriuos effects on the combat arms and he has said so. Gates and Mullen lack the spine to stick up for our military and, instead, go treasonously over to the side of the liberal left and the activist gays. They have effectively surrendered the trust given to them to protect the military from partisan politics. There is no room for politics affecting the military and especially so in time of war.

I can remember no President - ever - who used the US military as pawns to his political supporters. I detest him for that.

President Obama, with not a single day of miltary service, which in itself is contemptable, made thoughtless and selfish campaign promises which he determined necessary in order to garner every possible vote and ingratiated himself to a vocal minority by promising to end DADT without giving a bit of thought as to the consequences. He offered up the United States military as a tidbit to assuage their selfish demands, mostly the effected ground troops of the Army and Marines as hostages to gay activists who promised their vote and pain if he did not bow to their unsavory,detestable demands.

Now, at a time when our military is as heavily engaged as it has been for more
than forty years, at a time when individual troops are ordered to repeated
deployments to the war zones, now in a time of military uncertainty and maximum
commitment, is the wrong time for our politicians to advocate for a social
engineering experiment by endorsing an end to the current don't ask, don't tell
policy.

Neither the president nor an overwhelming preponderance of those in Congress
have served a single day in our country's military. For them now to pander to a
vocal minority seeking a liberal interpretation of society's rules is disturbing and quite revealing as to the total lack of any consideration of the residual effects of their actions.

To politicize our military in a time of war is as incredibly contemptible as it is indisputably ignorant of the military as an institution, a separate and distinct body tasked with the most crucial tasks of
defending our nation in a time of war.

To our politicians I say: Tinker with the civilian world if you must; do not
impose your liberal agenda on America's military for the purpose of vote
gathering.

Are there gays in our military? Certainly and always has been. "Don't ask, don't
tell!"

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.